Citation

Levett LM, Kovera MB. Psychol. Public Policy Law 2009; 15(2): 124-148.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law, Publisher American Psychological Association)

DOI

10.1037/a0016309

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This study examined the effectiveness of the opposing expert safeguard against unreliable expert testimony and whether beliefs about experts as hired guns and general acceptance mediate the effect of opposing expert testimony on juror decisions. We found strong evidence that the presence, but not the content, of opposing expert testimony affected jurors’ trial judgments and that these effects were mediated by mock jurors’ beliefs about general acceptance. The presence of an opposing expert affected jurors’ ratings of the general acceptance of research investigating sexual harassment in the workplace. Jurors’ beliefs about general acceptance then affected jurors’ ratings of plaintiff expert competence and research, which affected juror ratings of the probability that the plaintiff experienced a hostile work environment.